TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
"In graphic design circles, people think of screen fonts as preview mode --
it's only when the toner hits the wood-pulp that we usually judge a
typeface.
But that's an increasingly short-sighted view of life. Larger numbers of
computer users spend their entire time in front of a screen and never (or
seldom) print anything. So it became obvious to us that this was a reversal
of priorities -- we should not approach this as doing printer fonts adapted
for the screen, we should design them as screen fonts from the outset. The
printer fonts are secondary in this case."
Sandy
-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Friedman [SMTP:bjf -at- wavefront -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2000 10:01 AM
In our previous episode, Mark L. Levinson wrote:
>Georgia gives you readability on the screen
>at the expense of elegance on the page, by
>thickening what traditionally have been the
>thin strokes of the letters. It gives
>the printed page the look of overexposed
>phototypesetting. Livable, but heavyhanded.
Hmm. I find Georgia interesting because (to my eye) it looks
completely
different on screen than it does when printed. I like both,
actually, but
I would never have recognized printed Georgia from on-screen
Georgia.
